Chapter 3 Multiple choice questions

. Which of the following statements is true?

A defendant cannot in law be convicted on the evidence of a confession alone

A confession that has been proffered by a co-defendant may be excluded by operation of s78 PACE

Section 82(2) PACE preserves the common law discretion to exclude evidence

PACE does not contain a definition of a confession

. Which of the following statements is correct?

To be admissible a confession cannot be a wordless action

To be admissible a confession may be made to a person not in authority

A confession is inadmissible if it is only partly adverse to the person who made it

A confession must be made in writing

. Ruby is being questioned at the police station by two detectives. She is suspected of having thrown her pet dog Alice down the cellar stairs. A duty solicitor is present at the interview. The detectives question Ruby in a hectoring manner for eight hours continually and deliberately refuse the solicitor's requests for rest and meal breaks. Ruby denies the charge and claims Alice had fallen down the stairs since the cellar door had been accidentally left open. Finally, Ruby, exhausted, shouts back that she had been angry at Alice's barking while she was watching TV and that she had pushed Alice down into the cellar. Ruby is now charged with animal cruelty. Advise Ruby.

Ruby may be able to apply to have her confession excluded under the test for oppression, PACE s76(2)(a)

Ruby should be advised that verbal abuse does not fall within the definition of oppression

The burden of proof is on Ruby to prove that the confession was not obtained by oppression

If Ruby's confession is true, it will not be excluded under s 76(2)(a)

. Which case is authority for the proposition that for s76(2)(b) PACE to apply there is no need for bad faith on the part of the police?

R v Harvey (1988)

R v Fulling (1987)

R v Goldenberg (1989)

R v Spens (1993)

. Supply the name of the case and the section in the following sentence:
In [name the case], the Court of Appeal considered that the right to legal advice was 'one of the most important and fundamental rights of a citizen' and wrongful denial of a solicitor to the defendant at interview led to exclusion of the confession under PACE section [name the section].

R v Alladice (1988); s78

R v Samuel (1988); s 78

R v Samuel (1988); s 76(2)(b)

R v Alladice (1988);s76(2)(b)

. Which of the following statements is correct?

Code D PACE covers the conduct of police interviews

Code F PACE covers identification procedures

It is a criminal offence for the police to breach a provision of any of the PACE codes

Code C PACE covers the conduct of police interviews with suspects

. Imagine a scenario where there are two co-defendants, D1 and D2 in a trial for stabbing V. D2 has confessed in a pre-trial interview but states that D1 was not involved. D1 wishes to produce this statement at trial but D2's confession has not been adduced by the prosecution since they anticipate it will be excluded by the trial judge under s72(2)(b) PACE. Which is the correct answer?

The statement is only evidence against D2 and is prima facie inadmissible for D1

The statement may be admissible by the operation of the judicial inclusionary discretion under s78 PACE

The statement may be admissible under s76A PACE if it is relevant to D1's defence and if D1 can prove on the balance of probabilities that it was not obtained as a result of something said or done that was likely in the circumstances existing at the time to render unreliable any confession

The statement may be admissible under s76A PACE if it is relevant to D1's defence, if D1 can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not obtained as a result of something said or done that was likely in the circumstances existing at the time to render unreliable any confession and an application by the prosecution to admit on a challenge under s76 (2)(b) had not already been refused

. On which case is the following factual scenario based? The defendant gave 'no comment' interview but at trial claimed he had left the scene before the crime occurred. The court considered the meaning of 'fact' in s34(a).

Parkes v R (1976)

R v Knight (2004)

R v Argent (1997)

R v Hoare (2005)

. T was charged with assaulting an old age pensioner. At the start of a police interview, his solicitor gave a written statement and T failed to answer further police questions. His evidence at trial was consistent with the content of the statement. Is the court permitted to draw an adverse inference from his silence at interview?

Yes, because s35 CJPOA applies

No, because on the authority of R v Knight (2004) adverse inferences cannot not be drawn under s34 CJPOA where a pre-trial statement is comprehensive and new material was not at trial

Yes, because s34 CJPOA applies

Yes, because s37 CJPOA applies

. A is charged with murder. He gave a no comment interview to the police where a solicitor was present and did not testify at trial. At trial his counsel in cross examining a witness presented an innocent explanation of his whereabouts at the time of the offence. Can the prosecution rely on s34 as well as s35 CJPOA?

No, because s34 only applies where the defendant testifies at trial

No, because s34 does not apply to a new fact at trial introduced by counsel

Yes, because of R v Webber (2004)

Yes, because of Condron v UK (2001)

Chapter 3 Multiple choice questions

Quiz Content